Tesla Cybertruck Hellcat: Love it or hate it, police won't see it. - Page 3 - BMW K1600 Forum : BMW K1600 GT and GTL Forums
 27Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #21 of 30 Old 12-02-2019, 09:53 AM
Senior Member
 
earthling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Uxbridge, Ontario
Posts: 981
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by RefCat View Post
And that is not one bit different than any other car/truck ever made...you always trade off between weight, acceleration, and range. It has been that way since before stage coaches.
True, except that there has never been quite the direct relationship between energy storage and heat previously. In fact, we struggle to keep those two terms from becoming part of the same equation outside of the combustion chamber (edit: Since you are going back to stagecoaches, horses also had this problem)..

Pulling energy from a gas tank doesn't heat up the gas tank further reducing its effective capacity, it does heat up the battery and the more you add/subtract heat from the battery relative to use the more impact you have. This is why EVs (plugin or hybrid, of which I have owned 4) lose so much potential when it is cold or hot out or under load. The second consideration is that the mean time to empty just went down dramatically which is far less of a concern in an ICE vehicle because even though you are using fuel at a higher rate, your time to recharge (fill up) is only limited by your ability to find another source of fuel.

So... you see it does make a difference because all things are not equal and there are many tradeoffs with owning an EV. For *me*, having owned them for over a decade I can tell you that I can make it work. The average person who buys a truck and uses it as a truck will struggle to do the same.

My snarky comment however was not about the obviousness of whether any of those factors matter (range/load/speed) but more about how they get conflated together into a magic formula so yes, you are absolutely correct, its always been that way, but the solution has always been that there is another gas station around the corner and 5 minutes of fill up time won't ruin anyones day.

2012 BMW K1600GTL
earthling is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 30 Old 12-02-2019, 10:20 AM
Junior Member
 
FirstBMWfirstBagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Southern IN
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig302 View Post
Lot of stats and details about the storage areas without pics. Sounds like a fairytale. I would never put my business in the hands of an unproven EV. The only thing they’re good for is commuting between known distances.

Maybe someday when battery production and even more importantly, the production of electricity can support the required infrastructure. Even nuclear reactors produce undesirable waste. Wind energy? Drive through the Mojave and imagine that in your neighborhood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice look at the bed here:
FirstBMWfirstBagger is offline  
post #23 of 30 Old 12-02-2019, 11:13 AM
Senior Member
 
rikracer99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Weatherford Texas
Posts: 418
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyjets View Post
Loaded it's $76,900



500+mi Range (EPA est.)14,000+lbsTowing capacity 0 to 60 <2.9s


What else can do this on the market ??
All of the above are "claims", nothing is fact yet, except for the unbreakable windows. So, until they are, I am fully reserving judgement, Elon being who he is ,and all. Just sayin'
Rick

2016 BMW K1600 GTL-E

"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid" David St. Hubbins
rikracer99 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #24 of 30 Old 12-02-2019, 11:17 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
djfalkenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canterbury, NH
Posts: 838
Garage
Where I was simply making a statement on the design of the vehicle, which digresses a bit onto the relative value of EV versus internal combustion, may I add this? The argument, both sides of it, is off-target.

What you are doing, in effect, is arguing storage constraints - which are an evolving component. Forget storage for one moment (even though it is the single biggest limiter). Once you move from an internal combustion platform to an electric platform every other design constraint is made easier and engineering becomes very interesting.

Forget the fiscal argument of changing ecosystems off of fossil fuels because to do so would create a new industrial revolution similar to the one we began years ago once we build infrastructure to deploy hydrogen. The fiscal argument is had by those who have investments to lose.

And forget climate change for a moment; even though if you don't see it you are blind. The biggest reason for investing in a hydrogen-based infrastructure is that we would, once again, own energy and terrorism would be defunded. Building the next energy infrastructure would alone propel global economies and remove monies from nefarious players.

Once you move propulsion away from internal combustion, you enter our technological future.

As for climate change; we do not matter. The opinions of Boomers should not weigh heavily on the decisions made in the future because 1. we caused it, 2. it won't be our problem and 3. we are wrong. All are facts, my brothers.
Up 2 It and justcharlie like this.
djfalkenstein is offline  
post #25 of 30 Old 12-02-2019, 01:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Northsquad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Jupiter, Florida
Posts: 474
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by djfalkenstein View Post
Where I was simply making a statement on the design of the vehicle, which digresses a bit onto the relative value of EV versus internal combustion, may I add this? The argument, both sides of it, is off-target.

What you are doing, in effect, is arguing storage constraints - which are an evolving component. Forget storage for one moment (even though it is the single biggest limiter). Once you move from an internal combustion platform to an electric platform every other design constraint is made easier and engineering becomes very interesting.

Forget the fiscal argument of changing ecosystems off of fossil fuels because to do so would create a new industrial revolution similar to the one we began years ago once we build infrastructure to deploy hydrogen. The fiscal argument is had by those who have investments to lose.

And forget climate change for a moment; even though if you don't see it you are blind. The biggest reason for investing in a hydrogen-based infrastructure is that we would, once again, own energy and terrorism would be defunded. Building the next energy infrastructure would alone propel global economies and remove monies from nefarious players.

Once you move propulsion away from internal combustion, you enter our technological future.

As for climate change; we do not matter. The opinions of Boomers should not weigh heavily on the decisions made in the future because 1. we caused it, 2. it won't be our problem and 3. we are wrong. All are facts, my brothers.
How do we generate electricity?

Iron Butt Association Member#49820
MOA Member #106320
2013 K1600GT Dark Graphite
2008 K1200GT Dark Graphite(sold)
Northsquad is offline  
post #26 of 30 Old 12-02-2019, 01:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Prince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Ilderton (London), Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,974
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by djfalkenstein View Post
The opinions of Boomers should not weigh heavily on the decisions made in the future because 1. we caused it, 2. it won't be our problem and 3. we are wrong. All are facts, my brothers.
I understand all your points and generally agree except with these statements.

The first, "we caused it" is patently false. Humans have been polluting the environment since day 1. In the Victorian era we heated our homes and rail transportation using coal. This caused massive air pollution in larger cities. We still use coal in underdeveloped countries for home use. We use it in many areas for electricity production. The developed world transitioned from coal to oil around 1930 to 1950. Many areas transitioned from home use of oil to natural gas and electricity in the 1960's.

As a baby boomer living in California in the 1960's I remember the pale of pollution surrounding Los Angeles. California was a leader in the push for vehicle emission reductions. Since we were children "we did not cause it". Vehicle emission reduction has improved immensely since 1965 as the technology improved.

I remember Love Canal.
I remember acid rain.
I remember the river in Ohio burning from the pollution in it.
I remember mercury poisoning many lakes caused by paper production.

Baby boomers have been instrumental in pollution reduction. As humans we have squandered this improvement. Our population has increased 4 fold in my life. Every person consumes resources and always will. As our efficiency has improved it has allowed more of us to consume greater amounts of resources.

"It won't be our problem". Maybe less so than my grandson who was born 5 months ago but I plan to stick around for another 25 years. Even then my skin in the game are my children and grandchildren.

"We are wrong". Wrong about what? If everything I have written here is wrong then I question what the truth is.

I am not meaning any of this to be disrespectful to your or what you wrote. Merely more insight into a very serious problem.

I see it all the time. People in their old diesel trucks not giving a **** about them idling belching fumes. Or driving foot to the floor not caring about the fuel use it causes. I see it in the huge numbers of pickup trucks people choose to drive. I see it in our life choices of flying around the world. I see it in the destruction of forests world wide. This does not even start to wonder about the rapid rise in pollution caused by China and India. For all the work China is doing to switch to electrics they are still building massive coal generating stations to power those electric vehicles. Generally, people do not care. The small vocal minority I call ecoterrorists care.

For the last 55 years we have done a lot of work reducing our pollution impact. Then along comes Greta and pointing fingers. That rubs me the wrong way.

Paul
1984 Honda V65 Magna
1985 BMW K100RT
2011 BMW K1600GTL - gone
2018 BMW K1600GTL

Last edited by Prince; 12-02-2019 at 01:32 PM.
Prince is offline  
post #27 of 30 Old 12-02-2019, 02:10 PM
Senior Member
 
justcharlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Bainbridge Island, WA
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northsquad View Post
How do we generate electricity?
Much (most?) of it is still from coal, switching to natural gas - better, but still fossil fuel; that's your point, I assume. However, more and more is solar, wind, hydro, geo thermal, biomass, algae, (others?).

Personally, I'd favor going to hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Whether electric or hydrogen, eventually most of the electricity required for charging batteries or cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen can be generated by means that are cleaner than fossil fuel.

Whether or not our current well-documented climate change (including its warming) is actually caused by humans, it is established scientific fact that human activity is contributing. I'm sure there are those who disagree and deny that. I'm not going to try to change anybody's mind here, so carry on believing what you want and I'll do the same.
Meese and Up 2 It like this.

'18 GTL ebony metallic
added: Altrider engine bars, Ilium rear bars, Clearwater Darla and Billie brake lights

Last edited by justcharlie; 12-02-2019 at 02:29 PM. Reason: forgot solar - doh!
justcharlie is offline  
post #28 of 30 Old 12-02-2019, 02:27 PM
Senior Member
 
justcharlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Bainbridge Island, WA
Posts: 505
Back to the original post: Is it the flat, non-vertical, surfaces on the "truck" body that make it unseen by LEO devices? I assume that's why "stealth" airplanes are shaped like that.

Weird looking, but functional.

'18 GTL ebony metallic
added: Altrider engine bars, Ilium rear bars, Clearwater Darla and Billie brake lights
justcharlie is offline  
post #29 of 30 Old 12-02-2019, 02:56 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
djfalkenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canterbury, NH
Posts: 838
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by justcharlie View Post
Back to the original post: Is it the flat, non-vertical, surfaces on the "truck" body that make it unseen by LEO devices? I assume that's why "stealth" airplanes are shaped like that.

Weird looking, but functional.
Yes. On the truck, there is very little surface that reflects energy (back towards the emitter), rather most (all?) of it refracts energy (at tangents to the emitter).
djfalkenstein is offline  
post #30 of 30 Old Yesterday, 09:55 AM
Senior Member
 
earthling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Uxbridge, Ontario
Posts: 981
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by justcharlie View Post
Back to the original post: Is it the flat, non-vertical, surfaces on the "truck" body that make it unseen by LEO devices? I assume that's why "stealth" airplanes are shaped like that.

Weird looking, but functional.
Yes and no. The reason that you see older stealth aircraft with those specific angles and flat surfaces is because the thinking at the time was that presenting a surface edge-on would create a lower observability (less reflection) and those angles could be easily modeled in their flight control software, meaning, that there was a way to orient the aircraft such that it was always providing a low aspect ratio ( edge on profile of low observability) to the radar system. Because at the time of design it was difficult to come up with a computer model that took into account but aerodynamics and stealth we ended up with that faceted look. But, it also turns out that those flat planes have very poor flight characteristics and you create turbulence which has its own observability. Imagine a flat piece of cardboard and turn it edge on to a flashlight, it is easy to see how that flat plane of cardboard is stealthy. But look at it from any other angle and it turns out to be a pretty good reflector while at the same time the surface acts as a pretty good sail. Modern thinking (and new computer modeling prove) is that the compromise between sharp edges and curves is better because for a curve, no matter how its oriented, the reflection only happens across the small surface area directly in front of the emitter (tangent) and the rest is scattered. What is more important than either is the transitions between one element (body of plane) and the next (wing). Those junctures create reflections which can be observed by radar so a lot of attention has been paid to those junctures. When you combine the newer approaches with lowering the overall profile (making the plane thinner) and radar absorbing, diffusing paint/surfaces you get a good compromise between observability and flight characteristics. To put this in perspective, the F15 (the most popular fighter) is observable by radar from 200 miles out so you have a leisurely half an hour to figure out how to react. The F35 is only visible at 21 miles out, a 10x improvement. At 21 miles out and call it 400 MPH or ~350kIAS as an average of speed during approach and speed during attack the plane is covering that 21 miles in 3 minutes. That seems like a lot longer than it really is.

The look of stealth aircraft over time.

Back to the cybertruck. The reason it will not be stealthy is that those huge flat surfaces are going to light up like a search light at the wrong time. In a normal car you have nice flowing surfaces with few(er) sharp edges. That truck is a combination of perfect radar reflecting materials, giant flat surfaces, and some pretty sharp transitional edges. Unlike a fighter plane where you need to observe the aircraft as far away as possible to maintain your defensive awareness, a cop sitting on the side of the road has all the time in the world to light you up and there will be few vehicles on the road that draw more attention than the cybertruck. One of the tactics used by the recent record setting cannonball team was to make their car invisible by making it look like the average silver honda sedan at first glance, in their case stealth meant 'don't call attention to yourself' a tactic that the cybertruck will never be able to employ.

2012 BMW K1600GTL

Last edited by earthling; Yesterday at 10:05 AM. Reason: added some detail
earthling is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the BMW K1600 Forum : BMW K1600 GT and GTL Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome